|CSSP||COLLOQUE DE SYNTAXE
ET SÉMANTIQUE À PARIS
|CSSP > 2015 > Selection|
The CSSP selection process
This page attempts to answer the questions the CSSP scientific committees often gets on the selection process.
Selecting submissions to CSSP involves three distinct bodies: the scientific committee, the selection committee, and the secretary to the scientific committee.
Choosing reviewers: The scientific committee assigns abstracts to reviewers on the basis of their domains of expertise. Except in special cases (abstract too long, too short or inappropriate) each abstract is sent to three reviewers, including a member of the scientific committee.
Anonymity: Since abstracts must remain anonymous for members of the scientific committee, the secretary is in charge of checking that abstracts are not sent to their own author or a reviewer that is too close to the author (same affiliation or recent collaboration).
Selection: The scientific committee decides on a preliminary, anonymous selection on the basis of the reviews. In rare instances the committee may decide to alter the selection after anonymity is suspended: If two abstracts by the same author have been accepted, the committee may decide to keep only the best one in the selection. If an abstract relies very heavily on previous work, the committee may judge that the abstract is acceptable only if its author is also the author of the previous work.
Special cases: CSSP considers submissions both from members of the selection committee and from members of the scientific committee. Submissions from members of the selection committee are treated just like ordinary submissions. Submissions from members of the scientific committee are reviewed anonymously by three reviewers external to the scientific committee.
Notification: The authors are notified of the result in a message including the comments from the reviewers. These comments are sent to authors to help them prepare their presentation or understand the assessment of their abstract. The comments do not reflect the position of the scientific committee, who need not agree with the evaluation of all reviewers.
|Main page||Contact: email@example.com|